Disposed

Kaluva Venkata Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Mar 2024WP/1033/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Sub-Registrar to re-examine a refused sale deed regarding land assigned before 18.06.1954, ordered verification of District Collector records to potentially exempt the land from the prohibition list, and disposed of the writ petition without costs within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to re-examine the issue, verify records regarding pre-18.06.1954 assignment status for deletion from the prohibited list, and decide on acceptance of the sale deed with

Kaluva Venkata Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR --

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1033 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kaluva Venkata Reddy, S/o K Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged- 60 years, Occ- Agriculture, D/No-1/90 Gownivaripalli Village and post, Gorantia Mandal, Ananthapuram District Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

Chinapareddy gari Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Chinapareddy gari Rami Reddy, Aged49 years, OccAgriculture, D/No-10-57, Near Ramaswamy Temple Enumulapalli Village and post, Puttaparthi Mandal, Ananthapuram District Andhra Pradesh.

¶9

Chinapareddy gari Prathap Reddy, S/o C. Ramireddy, Aged- 43 years, Occ- Agriculture, D/No-10-58, Near Ramaswamy Temple Enumulapalli Village and post, Puttaparthi Mandal, Ananthapuram District Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.

¶13

m 2. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps^{andRegistrations,} Vijayawada 521151 Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

The District Registrar, Ananthpuram.

¶15

The Sub-Registrar, Chilamathur, Ananthpuram.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying^thatin the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction^{moreparticularly} one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article^{226ofTheConstitution} of India declaring the action of the respondent No.4/Sub-Registr ar, Chilamathur in declining the registration and allotting^{thedocumentnumber} of the sale deed of the petitioners, pertaining to the extent^ofpurchased land of Ac.1 cents (0.404 Hectors) in Sy.No.269-1 and 269-1A/3.74, situated within the boundaries of Sy.No.269-2 in Eastern^{side,Westernside} Pavuluri Siva Parvathi land, North Sy.No.107 of Kamma Venkatesulu^land and Southern side Path way, as arbitrary, illegal,^{unconstitutionalnulland} void and opposed to the canons of natural Justice as^{embodiedinArticles} 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also^{violativeofthe} provisions of Indian Registration Act, consequently^{directtherespondent} No.4, Sub-Registrar, Chilamathur, to receive the document on our resubmission and register the same by allotting appropriate document number, in accordance with law.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the 4th respondent, Sub-Registrar,^{Chilamathur,toreceive} the sale deed on re-submission by the petitioners, pertaining to the purchase of an extent of land of Ac.1 cents (0.404^{Hectors)inSy.No.269-1}

¶20

V..

¶21

APHC010011192020

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶23

[3233]

¶24

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 1033/2020

¶28

Between:

¶29

Kaluva Venkata Reddy and Others

¶30

...PETITIONER(S)

¶31

AND

¶32

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶35

1.GYARYNETHALA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER;

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the^learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶40

This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the 4^^ respondent in refusing to register the document/sale^{deedpresented} vide P.No. 424 of 2019 dated 03.10.2019. The petitioners^and their vendors submitted the documents for execution of the^saledeedvide P.No.424 of 2019 before the 4^^ respondent with respect to the subject

¶41

a /

¶42

land in an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy.No. 269-1 and 269-1A/3.74, situated within the boundaries of Sy.No. 269 2 on East, Pavuluri Siva Parvathi land on West, Sy.No. 107 of Kamma Venkatesulu land on North and the path way on South. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ vendors’ vendor was also issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deed for the subject land in an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy.No.269-1A vide patta No.2360. Consequently, upon purchase of the said land by the petitioners’ vendor, Pattadar passbook and title deed was also issued in favour of the petitioners’ vendor vide Katha No. 2277 for the subject land in an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy.No. 269lA of Gorantla Village, Gorantla Mandal, Penukonda Division, Ananthapur District. While so, the petitioners intended to purchase the said land and the vendor of the petitioners and the petitioners presented the draft sale deed before the 4th respondent for its registration vide P.No. 424 of 2019 but the same was refused by the d* respondent on the ground that the schedule property is in the Prohibited list under Section 22 A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908 observing that this is an assigned land. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents relying upon the counter of the 4th respondent submits that the subject land is classified in the revenue records as assigned land and as such it attracts section 22 A V

¶43

of the Registration Act, 1908. As per the decision^{oftheFullBenchof} the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.343 of 2015 dated'23.12.2015, once notification is issued by the^authority, the aggrieved party can approach the concerned authority^{todeletetheir} lands from the list. He also further submits that against^therefusalof the registration by the 4^^ respondent vide order dated^{03.10.2019,the} an appeal before the 3’''^ petitioners ought to have preferred respondent herein. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners^{submitsthatthe} refusal by the 4* respondent for accepting the above^saiddocument itself is without jurisdiction as the said provision^{oflawofsection22A} of the Registration Act would not apply to the subject^{landsincethis} was an assigned land prior to 18.06.1954 and as per the proceedings of the District Collector giving endorsement of G.O.Ms.No.575/20¹⁸ dated 16.11.2018 with respect to the Gorantla Village,^Anantapur District in Sy.No. 269-1 to an extent of Ac. 3.74 cents^wasshownas 18.06.1954. The said particulars of the land assigned prior to assigned prior to 18.06.1954 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.^{575/2018dated} 16.11.2018 is annexed as Annexure-1 under section 22^A(1)(a)ofthe Registration Act. Contrary to the above said particulars^furnishedby the District Collector in terms of the G.O.Ms.No. 575/2018 dated 16.11.2018, the 4^^ respondent erroneously observed that it is an assigned land and accordingly the document submitted^bytheparties

¶44

was rejected on 03.10.2019. While there were such particulars^ofthe land assigned prior to 18.06.1954, the Collector and District Magistrate also requested the District Registrars, Hindupur to delete the above said lands from Annexure-I of Gorantla Village^andMandal. 6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the 4^^ respondent is directed to re-examine the issue by considering the proceedings furnished by the District Collector and requisition made with respect to the subject land for exemption/deletion from the prohibited list and upon hearing the parties concerned including the petitioners and upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken by the 4* respondent in the matter of accepting the sale deed submitted by the petitioners’ vendor and the petitioners vide P.No.424 of 2019 without reference to the order passed earlier by the 4th respondent dated 03.10.2019. The 4th respondent shall complete the above said exercise as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶45

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off. There^shallbeno order as to costs.

¶46

*>s.

¶47

¶48

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,^shallstand

¶49

closed.

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

SD/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD assistant registrar (X^ SECTION Off ICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.

¶54

The Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registrations, Vijayawada 521151 Andhra Pradesh.

¶55

The District Registrar, Ananthpuram.

¶56

The Sub-Registrar, Chilamathur, Ananthpuram.

¶57

One CC to SRI. GYARY NETHALA Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶59

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1033 of 2020

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Kaluva Venkata Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaluva Venkata Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Panchada Krishna Vs the Union of India

Ravuri Eshwaraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Chandramouli, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vase Paul Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Harijana Rangamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Thikkavaram Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh